Posted on 02/09/2014 2:09:50 PM PST by NYer
I wasn’t aware that speaking the truth was an attack. I get frustrated trying to get the truth out I guess, but the 2nd Timothy verse was a good one that was posted earlier.
“Protestantism is a HERESY.”
Simply an opinion. Really, do you know what the word “fact” means? Or do you not care about facts? Or something else?
There are many places to acquire factual evidence, yet you seem repelled by the idea. I will take you seriously to the degree you use your mind to back up your specious claims. If you cannot do that, your posts are just a “noisy gong.”
Are you saying that Jesus founding the Catholic Church on the Apostles as the first Bishops is not a biblical fact?
The Catholic church has existed for nearly 2000 years. Read some of St. Justin Martyr’s writings about the first home Masses. Our Masses today basically follow the same rubrics that they honored in the Early Church.
Please get the facts and stop believing the pamphlets and preachers who hate Catholicism.
Yes, I’m saying your first paragraph is false. For the record I don’t hate Catholics at all, quite the opposite. I love my fellow man therefor I try to encourage people to seek the truth. It’s up to the Holy spirit to move who he moves.
“Read some of St. Justin Martyr’s writings about the first home Masses. Our Masses today basically follow the same rubrics that they honored in the Early Church.”:
By referencing Martyr’s writings, you’ve just demonstrated how far the Church drifted into paganism just 120 years after Christ. From there, all kinds of pagan beliefs were added over the centuries.
Disagreement doesn’t demand hate. I dearly love many Romans. I just disagree with the pagan teachings that crept into their church.
When you pose as a victim of hate, it does not advance your position as true or false.
Yes, it must have drifted into paganism in such a short time because it disagrees with the Protestant interpretation of Scripture which came 1500 years later. And yet, if such early Christianity fell into error how can we have confidence in what is, or is not, Scripture in the first place since the canon of the Bible would not be definitively decided until over a hundred years later?
The RCC has constructed a false history ...
Adhering to a false gospel ...
Producing false converts ...
Clinging to a false hope ..
That's no way to slip into eternity
I think the stories are part of "sacred tradition."
“Yes, it must have drifted into paganism in such a short time because it disagrees with the Protestant interpretation of Scripture which came 1500 years later.”
No, it disagrees with Scripture, which you can look at today and see that those things are not there.
“And yet, if such early Christianity fell into error how can we have confidence in what is, or is not, Scripture in the first place since the canon of the Bible would not be definitively decided until over a hundred years later?”
I am always amazed that catholics do not worship a God who is both Sovereign and Omnipotent. As a Christian, my confidence is in Him. It always takes me by surprise that people who claim to be Christians see God as weak, ineffectual and unable to carry out His will.
Is that when the Holy Spirit started his 1500-year long nap? Or was he away on important business?
Like the Mormons, you think that Jesus was incapable of founding a church that could sustain itself and stay faithful to him for more than a few years, so it required a "reformer" (which one? there are dozens!) to come along and restore what had supposedly been lost.
Why would you worship such a Jesus? He was obviously an abject failure, according to your view of history.
“Is that when the Holy Spirit started his 1500-year long nap? Or was he away on important business?”
Why would you think the Holy Spirit was not actively at work??
“Like the Mormons, you think that Jesus was incapable of founding a church that could sustain itself and stay faithful to him for more than a few years, so it required a “reformer” (which one? there are dozens!) to come along and restore what had supposedly been lost.”
No I do not. Where I likely differ from the standard Roman belief is that I don’t believe Christ founded a “church”. He said He was founding an assembly. The errors of man and the sins of man cannot stand in His way, anymore than a rock can stop a river.
“Why would you worship such a Jesus? He was obviously an abject failure, according to your view of history.”
Because the Christ I worship isn’t the one you imagine. He has never failed. Yes men fail, yes churches fail, yes paganism renders churches neutered, but that does not stop the plan of God any more than Israel’s failures.
When one does the research, it turns out that the pamphlets and preachers were right...
As with many of the church father's works, most of Justin Martyr's writings have been shown to be forged...So what's new, eh???
Truth and facts matter not...
You haven’t DONE ENOUGH research.
I certainly have...
I’ll pray for you to be enlightened.
“So you are Eastern Orthodox?”
I have heard of Papists, who read too much of the church fathers (on the topic of the Papacy) and question Papist assertions like what you provide, convert to the Eastern Orthodox because they think that they, in fact, have the “tradition” that was really from the days of Christ to the modern age. And all this on the basis of the Pope losing his allure.
The problem with the EOC, however, is that even though they get rid of Roman power presumptions, they still don’t realize that they are only picking and choosing which “Apostolic” tradition to uphold. They’ll reject Augustine, for example, and instead prefer some useless bugger who tickles their ears. And they really, like Papists, don’t truly appreciate how different their religion is compared to the first few centuries.
They’re basically just like Papists in this regard, except, instead of being obsessed with the Pope to the complete ignorance of doctrine, they obsess with their tradition to the complete detriment of holy scripture.
So, I would never be an Eastern Orthodox. That’s like downgrading to a slightly evolved version of Papist.
Give me my Bible, and I am quite happy. That’s the only sure “tradition” you can count on.
“St. Clement of Rome wrote the letter to the Church in Corinth in 95 AD. He was certainly the Bishop of Rome. I know of no reputable Protestant patristic scholar that questions the authenticity of this latter.”
That’s like saying “The Constitution is a living, flexible document. No reputable scholar questions the authenticity of the Constitution.”
It’s stupid, of course, since the letter in question does not support the assertions being made.
“So, rather than check the post you suggested, I just went to my Church Father writings and found evidence that clearly contradicts your assertion that it is hard to tell wehter Rome even had Bishops at all during the first and second centuries.”
Depends on what you mean by “Bishops” and “church fathers.’ As Dr. White observes:
“First and foremost, there is tremendous confusion concerning the early “lists” of the bishops of Rome, and for good reason. Different sources give different renderings. Why? As simple as it may sound, the reason is easily discovered: no one really cared for the first century of the history of the church at Rome. All the lists come from at the earliest many decades later, and show a concern that did not arise until the Church as a whole began struggling with heresy and began formulating concepts of authority to use against heretics. But in those first decades, even into the middle of the second century, no one was particularly concerned about who the bishop of Rome was. Why? Because no one had the concepts that Rome now presents as “ancient.” No one thought the bishop of any one church was above any other, or that the bishop of Rome was somehow invested with any particular authority.
No Monarchical Episcopate
What’s more, there is a fatal historical fact that is overlooked consistently by Roman Catholic apologists. Joseph F. Kelly in his The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity (The Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 2, notes,
The word “pope” was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the ninth century, and it is likely that in the earliest Roman community a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop provided the leadership.”
http://vintage.aomin.org/1296CATR.html
placemarker
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Mind reading is against the rules here on the Religion Forum.
That poster did not say he/she got any information from "pamphlets and preachers" "who hate Catholicism."
Most of the other-than-Catholic posters get their information from the Bible.
LOL @hate Catholicism!
Like the Mormons, it seems Catholics feel hated if someone does not agree with them!
For poster Bulwyf: I know you don't need anyone to stand up for you when false accusations are posted--those that post them should be called on it.
The Catholic Church started about 300 years after Jesus started His church in the first centuary--made up of all born again believer who follow Jesus.
It was built on The Rock, Scripturally many times in the OT and the NT referring to Jesus and God.
Perhaps the RM should be informed of the mind reading?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.